<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dear all,<div><br></div><div>We have a guest speaker (Riccardo Pedersini, postdoc from Jeremy Wolfe's lab at Harvard) on Monday at the Natcomp lab meeting. Please let me know if you would like to meet with the speaker, and your availability.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,</div><div>Angela</div><div><div><div><br></div><div><i>Title</i>. Repeated choices in visual and abstract tasks.<br><i>Abstract</i>. It is well established that people are uncertainty averse (Ellsberg, 1961). Yet, I will compare two series of experiments suggesting that people may be better off in decisions under uncertainty than in decisions under risk. First, I will discuss a visual search task, in which subjects had to search for weapons in images of x-rayed bags. Their performance was nearly optimal and they tended to maximize value over accuracy. Then, I will present a task which mimics visual search, but in fact consists of a series of repeated gambles with known probabilities. Subjects, this time, were definitely suboptimal. As opposed to visual search, they had all the information they needed to compute the optimal strategy, but they did not take advantage of it.<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></body></html>